本研究以2017年至2023年台灣上市櫃企業為樣本，利用台灣經濟新報（TEJ）資料庫取得整體及個別ESG評分，並結合IFRS Finance資料庫的財務績效與控制變數資料，最終取得8277筆樣本。採用多元迴歸模型分析整體ESG評分與財務績效（ROA及Tobin’s Q）間的關係，並進一步探討環境（E）、社會（S）、公司治理（G）三大構面及其交互作用對財務績效的影響。
研究結果顯示，整體ESG評分與ROA及Tobin’s Q均呈顯著正向關係，顯示企業在ESG方面的投入能有效提升財務績效與市場評價。個別構面中，公司治理對兩項績效指標均有顯著正向影響，強調良好治理對提升經營效率及風險管控的重要性。環境構面對Tobin’s Q呈弱顯著正向關係，反映環境投資的長期價值，但對短期會計績效ROA無顯著影響；社會構面對ROA具有邊際顯著正向影響，顯示社會責任投入可提升企業短期財務績效，對市場價值影響則不明顯。交互作用分析指出，環境與公司治理的結合對市場價值具顯著加乘效果，強調兩者協同促進企業價值增長。此外，COVID-19疫情期間企業績效及市場評價均有提升，反映疫情推動企業永續轉型及投資者態度變化。
本研究填補ESG三構面個別及交互作用對財務績效影響之研究空白，並提供台灣企業永續發展策略資源配置之實務參考。

This study analyzes listed Taiwanese companies from 2017 to 2023, using ESG scores from the Taiwan Economic Journal (TEJ) and financial data from the IFRS Finance database, with a final sample of 8,277 observations. Multiple regression models examine overall ESG scores and financial performance (ROA and Tobin’s Q), as well as the effects of Environmental (E), Social (S), and Corporate Governance (G) dimensions and their interactions.
Results show overall ESG scores positively relate to ROA and Tobin’s Q, indicating ESG investments enhance financial and market performance. Corporate governance significantly improves both metrics, highlighting its role in operational efficiency and risk control. The environmental dimension shows a weak positive link to Tobin’s Q but no effect on ROA, suggesting long-term benefits. The social dimension marginally affects ROA, implying social efforts boost short-term outcomes, with limited market impact. Interaction effects reveal a positive synergy between environmental and governance factors on market value. The COVID-19 period corresponds with improved financial and market results, reflecting faster sustainability adoption and changing investor preferences.
This study addresses gaps in ESG impact literature and offers guidance for sustainability resource allocation in Taiwanese firms.

目錄
論文審定書i
中文摘要ii
Abstactiii
第一章 緒論1
第一節 研究背景1
第二節 研究動機與目的2
第三節 研究流程3
第二章 文獻探討5
第一節.環境與財務表現的關係5
第二節.社會與財務表現的關係6
第三節.治理與財務表現的關係7
第四節.ESG整體與財務表現的關係7
第五節.E.S.G三者之間的交互作用與財務表現的關係8
第三章 資料與研究方法12
第一節 資料來源及樣本選取12
第二節 變數定義及其衡量12
第三節 實證模型17
第四章 研究結果19
第一節 敘述性統計分析19
第二節 相關性分析21
第三節 迴歸結果分析23
第五章. 結論與建議41
第一節 研究發現41
第二節 研究限制與建議42
參考文獻43

張育琳 (2019). 節能減碳、企業綠色環境管理策略與公司績效之關連性. 中山管理評論, 27(2), 279–326.

高蘭芬, 盧正壽, 黃冠智, & 陳安琳 (2012). 公司治理、公司績效與投資策略. 中山管理評論, 20(3), 851–880. https://doi.org/10.6160/2012.09.04

林怡勉, 陳安琳, & 盧正壽 (1998). 市值與帳面價值比對公司價值的影響. 中山管理評論, 6(2), 123–145.

Friede, G., Busch, T., & Bassen, A. (2015). ESG and financial performance: Aggregated evidence from more than 2000 empirical studies. *Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment, 5*(4), 210–233.

Barnett, M. L., & Salomon, R. M. (2006). Beyond dichotomy: The curvilinear relationship between social responsibility and financial performance. *Strategic Management Journal, 27*, 1101–1122.

Xie, J., Nozawa, W., Yagi, M., Fujii, H., & Managi, S. (2019). Do environmental, social, and governance activities improve corporate financial performance? *Business Strategy and the Environment, 28*, 286–300.

Nofsinger, J. R., Sulaeman, J., & Varma, A. (2019). Institutional investors and corporate social responsibility. *Journal of Corporate Finance, 58*, 700–725.

Berg, F., Kölbel, J. F., & Rigobon, R. (2022). Aggregate confusion: The divergence of ESG ratings. *Review of Finance, 26*(6), 1315–1344. https://doi.org/10.1093/rof/rfac033

Porter, M. E., & van der Linde, C. (1995). Toward a new conception of the environment-competitiveness relationship. *Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9*(4), 97–118.

Russo, M. V., & Fouts, P. A. (1997). A resource-based perspective on corporate environmental performance and profitability. *Academy of Management Journal, 40*(3), 534–559. https://doi.org/10.2307/257052

Clarkson, C., Maharaj, V. J., Crouch, N. R., Grace, O. M., Pillay, P., Matsabisa, M. G., Bhagwandin, N., Smith, P. J., & Folb, P. I. (2004). In vitro antiplasmodial activity of medicinal plants native to or naturalised in South Africa. *Journal of Ethnopharmacology, 92*(2-3), 177–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jep.2004.02.011

King, A., & Lenox, M. (2002). Exploring the locus of profitable pollution reduction. *Management Science, 48*(2), 289–299.

Darnall, N., Henriques, I., & Sadorsky, P. (2008). Do environmental management systems improve business performance in an international setting? *Journal of International Management, 14*(4), 364–376.

Dowell, G., Hart, S., & Yeung, B. (2000). Do corporate global environmental standards create or destroy market value? *Management Science, 46*(8), 1059–1074.

Guenster, N., Bauer, R., Derwall, J., & Koedijk, K. (2011). The economic value of corporate eco-efficiency. *European Financial Management, 17*(4), 679–704. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-036X.2009.00532.x

Jiao, Y. (2010). Stakeholder welfare and firm value. *Journal of Banking & Finance, 34*(10), 2549–2561.

Horváthová, E. (2010). Does environmental performance affect financial performance? A meta-analysis. *Ecological Economics, 70*(1), 52–59.

Lee, M. T., Raschke, R. L., & Krishen, A. S. (2022). Signaling green! Firm ESG signals in an interconnected environment that promote brand valuation. *Journal of Business Research, 138*, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.08.061

Bae, K.-H., El Ghoul, S., Gong, Z., & Guedhami, O. (2021). Does CSR matter in times of crisis? Evidence from the COVID-19 pandemic. *Journal of Corporate Finance, 67*, 101876. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2020.101876

Luo, X., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2009). The debate over doing good: Corporate social performance, strategic marketing levers, and firm-idiosyncratic risk. *Journal of Marketing, 73*(6), 198–213.

Simpson, B., Robertson, J. L., & White, K. (2020). How co-creation increases employee corporate social responsibility and organizational engagement: The moderating role of self-construal. *Journal of Business Ethics, 166*, 331–350. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04138-3

Kim, H.-R., Lee, M., Lee, H.-T., & Kim, N.-M. (2010). Corporate social responsibility and employee-company identification. *Journal of Business Ethics, 95*, 557–569. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0440-2

Servaes, H., & Tamayo, A. (2013). The impact of corporate social responsibility on firm value: The role of customer awareness. *Management Science, 59*(5), 1045–1061.

Feng, Z., Hardin, W. G., & Beracha, E. (2019). REIT operational efficiency and shareholder value. *Journal of Real Estate Research, 41*(4), 513–554. https://doi.org/10.22300/0896-5803.41.4.513

Byun, S. K., & Oh, J.-M. (2018). Local corporate social responsibility, media coverage, and shareholder value. *Journal of Banking & Finance, 87*, 68–86.

Bouslah, K., Kryzanowski, L., & M'Zali, B. (2013). The impact of the dimensions of social performance on firm risk. *Journal of Banking & Finance, 37*(4), 1258–1273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2012.12.004

Dumitrescu, A., & Zakriya, M. (2021). Stakeholders and the stock price crash risk: What matters in corporate social performance? *Journal of Corporate Finance, 67*, 101876.

Cohen, G. (2022). ESG risks and corporate survival. *Environment Systems and Decisions*.

Clark, G. L., Feiner, A., & Viehs, M. (2015). From the stockholder to the stakeholder: How sustainability can drive financial outperformance. *SSRN*. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2508281

NAREIT. (2022). *REIT Industry ESG Report 2022*. https://www.reit.com/investing/reit-sustainability/2022-reit-esg-report

Mejia, M., Saavedra, D., & Sanabria, J. (2020). Corporate governance as a strategy to attract new investors. *Journal of Business Research, 115*, 229–237.
Brown, L. D., & Caylor, M. L. (2006). Corporate governance and firm performance. *Journal of Corporate Finance, 12*(2), 430–443.

Giroud, X., & Mueller, H. M. (2011). Corporate governance, product market competition, and equity prices. *Journal of Finance, 66*(2), 563–600. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.2010.01642.x

Nowland, J. (2008). The effect of GMI ratings on US firm financial performance. *Corporate Governance: An International Review, 16*(4), 293–305.

Zhao, C., Guo, Y., Yuan, J., Wu, M., Li, D., Zhou, Y., & Kang, J. (2018). ESG and corporate financial performance: Empirical evidence from China's listed power generation companies. *Sustainability, 10*(8), 2607.

Giese, G., Lee, L.-E., Melas, D., Nagy, Z., & Nishikawa, L. (2019). Foundations of ESG investing: How ESG affects equity valuation, risk, and performance. *Journal of Portfolio Management, 45*(5), 69–83.

Masud, M. A. K., Nurunnabi, M., & Bae, S. M. (2018). The effects of corporate governance on environmental sustainability reporting: Empirical evidence from South Asian countries. *Asian Journal of Sustainability and Social Responsibility, 3*(1), 3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41180-018-0019-x

Bosun-Fakunle, Y., Pucheta-Martínez, M. C., & Gallego-Álvarez, I. (2023). Corporate governance mechanisms and environmental performance: Evidence from emerging markets. *Sustainability, 15*(1), 98–118.

Hamzeh Al Amosh, & Khatib, S. F. A. (2023). Environmental, social and governance performance disclosure and market value: Evidence from Jordan. *Business Perspectives and Research, 0*(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/22785337221148861

Loderer, C., & Waelchli, U. (2010). Firm age and performance. *MPRA Paper 26450*. University Library of Munich, Germany.

McConnell, J. J., & Servaes, H. (1990). Additional evidence on equity ownership and corporate value. *Journal of Financial Economics, 27*(2), 595–612.

Ibhagui, O. W., & Olokoyo, F. O. (2018). Leverage and firm performance: New evidence on the role of firm size. *The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, 45*, 57–82.

Gentry, R. J., Shen, W., & Xue, Y. (2006). The impact of firm growth on firm performance: Evidence from China. *Journal of Business Research, 59*(12), 1313–1320.

Riley Clubb, C., Hrazdil, K., & Zhang, R. (2016). The market valuation of environmental capital expenditures by utilities. *Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 43*(7-8), 837–871.